Let's Talk

Long term victory for conservative ideas means changing the culture. The Democrats will get back into power sooner or later. We want an America in which Democrats no longer want to create huge once-size-fits-all government programs that create widespread dependency on the government. We want an America where no liberal would think of proposing a nominee like Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the United States Supreme Court.

In our vision of America, when someone says: "But people have needs," liberal women like Larry Summers' tormentor Nancy Hopkins will faint away in disbelief if anyone suggests a government program as a response.

The future is not won by elections and Supreme Court decisions; it is won by changing the culture. We are talking about a national conversation.

"Let's talk," said Hillary Clinton, among others.

Last week the British Conservative Party decided to start a national conversation at their annual conference. The result was a sudden 10 point jump in the opinion polls. The week before all the experts had written Conservative leader David Cameron off as a light-weight and a loser.

So how did David Camerons and the Conservative Party come back from the dead?

First of all they proposed a little tax relief, raising the exemption on inheritance tax to one million pounds: no death tax for anyone who isn't a millionaire. All of a sudden the experts realized that inheritance tax was deeply unpopular-with women. Wrote Anatole Kaletsky in The Times:

[M]iddle-aged, middle-class women, eager to maximise the legacies that they can leave to their children and grandchildren, will vote for any party promising to relieve them of inheritance tax.

Let's talk.

Then there was David Cameron's speech to the Conservative Party conference. It was a speech that covered a lot of the same ground as any Republican presidential candidate, starting with lower taxes and broken windows policing. Then Cameron called for radical choice in education.

[W]e need to open up the state monopoly and allow new schools... So we will say to churches, to voluntary bodies, to private companies, to private schools come into the state sector... [W]e can have those new schools so we can really drive up standards.

OK, it was not that radical. It was just calling for an education system similar to Sweden. But try suggesting it to Randi Weingarten of the United Federation of Teachers in New York City.

It was Cameron's attitude towards the Labour Party and its welfare policy that was truly radical.

Labour's great passion was tackling poverty but in many ways its been one of their greatest areas of failure... They've put the money in... but it hasn't worked. Why?

I believe it's because they relied too much on the state organisations that can treat people like statistics rather than like human beings.

With this approach he gave credit to the left for its good intentions. But then he invited his audience to wonder why it didn't work.

Instead of the normal method of the political platform speaker with its clanging accusations and exhortations to victory Cameron used a more feminine approach.

He came out from behind his podium and abandoned his prepared speech and teleprompter.

I've just got a few notes so it might be a bit messy; but it will be me.

Instead of indicting the other party he tasked them for not listening. You know how it goes: They meant to end poverty, but they just didn't know what they were doing and they didn't listen, bless their hearts.

"You know the best welfare system of all," Cameron concluded, "It's called the family."

Political insiders like William Langley report that Cameron's wife, Samantha, is a prime driver of this woman-friendly conversational format.

What do women want? Do they want a government monopoly education system that doesn't listen to them and doesn't respond to the special needs of each child?

Do women want a uniform single-payer health care system, designed by Hillary Clinton and her experts, that is incapable of responding to the specific needs of each family?

We already have a system that delivers every kind of house that women want. It delivers every kind of clothing that women want. It delivers every kind of food that women want, and cars with every kind of cup-holder that women want.

How about a system that delivers every kind of education and health care that women want?

Long term victory for conservative ideas means changing the culture. The Democrats will get back into power sooner or later. We want an America in which Democrats no longer want to create huge once-size-fits-all government programs that create widespread dependency on the government. We want an America where no liberal would think of proposing a nominee like Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the United States Supreme Court.

In our vision of America, when someone says: "But people have needs," liberal women like Larry Summers' tormentor Nancy Hopkins will faint away in disbelief if anyone suggests a government program as a response.

The future is not won by elections and Supreme Court decisions; it is won by changing the culture. We are talking about a national conversation.

"Let's talk," said Hillary Clinton, among others.

Last week the British Conservative Party decided to start a national conversation at their annual conference. The result was a sudden 10 point jump in the opinion polls. The week before all the experts had written Conservative leader David Cameron off as a light-weight and a loser.

So how did David Camerons and the Conservative Party come back from the dead?

First of all they proposed a little tax relief, raising the exemption on inheritance tax to one million pounds: no death tax for anyone who isn't a millionaire. All of a sudden the experts realized that inheritance tax was deeply unpopular-with women. Wrote Anatole Kaletsky in The Times:

[M]iddle-aged, middle-class women, eager to maximise the legacies that they can leave to their children and grandchildren, will vote for any party promising to relieve them of inheritance tax.

Let's talk.

Then there was David Cameron's speech to the Conservative Party conference. It was a speech that covered a lot of the same ground as any Republican presidential candidate, starting with lower taxes and broken windows policing. Then Cameron called for radical choice in education.

[W]e need to open up the state monopoly and allow new schools... So we will say to churches, to voluntary bodies, to private companies, to private schools come into the state sector... [W]e can have those new schools so we can really drive up standards.

OK, it was not that radical. It was just calling for an education system similar to Sweden. But try suggesting it to Randi Weingarten of the United Federation of Teachers in New York City.

It was Cameron's attitude towards the Labour Party and its welfare policy that was truly radical.

Labour's great passion was tackling poverty but in many ways its been one of their greatest areas of failure... They've put the money in... but it hasn't worked. Why?

I believe it's because they relied too much on the state organisations that can treat people like statistics rather than like human beings.

With this approach he gave credit to the left for its good intentions. But then he invited his audience to wonder why it didn't work.

Instead of the normal method of the political platform speaker with its clanging accusations and exhortations to victory Cameron used a more feminine approach.

He came out from behind his podium and abandoned his prepared speech and teleprompter.

I've just got a few notes so it might be a bit messy; but it will be me.

Instead of indicting the other party he tasked them for not listening. You know how it goes: They meant to end poverty, but they just didn't know what they were doing and they didn't listen, bless their hearts.

"You know the best welfare system of all," Cameron concluded, "It's called the family."

Political insiders like William Langley report that Cameron's wife, Samantha, is a prime driver of this woman-friendly conversational format.

What do women want? Do they want a government monopoly education system that doesn't listen to them and doesn't respond to the special needs of each child?

Do women want a uniform single-payer health care system, designed by Hillary Clinton and her experts, that is incapable of responding to the specific needs of each family?

We already have a system that delivers every kind of house that women want. It delivers every kind of clothing that women want. It delivers every kind of food that women want, and cars with every kind of cup-holder that women want.

How about a system that delivers every kind of education and health care that women want?